All recent comments on applications from Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, VIC

The proposal responds appropriately to the relevant planning scheme matters and should be supported.

The proposal is an "acceptable planning outcome" based on the Knox v Tulcany rule.

The proposal will not unreasonably impact upon the surrounding site amenity.

The proposal responds appropriately to the Clause 65 VPP matters.

The proposal responds appropriately to the emerging character of the surroundings.

The proposal provides an essential service upgrade to maintain quality of services to the surroundings noting growth in population, mobile device penetration, motor vehicle traffic and visitation.

I support this application. The tree is dangerous. It is dying and at risk of destroying nearby fencing and powerlines and falling on a children's play area. Furthermore, the root system is causing adjacent fencing to collapse (it is currently propped), again, at risk of causing injury in the children's play area.

So to those who do not object to the proposed tower, shall it be popped in your backyard then? Or maybe your next door neighbour’s backyard? How about right beside your driveway where you access your property several times a day? That will put an end to all of these debates and you can then be the benevolent heroes of Somerville and its persisting telecommunications issue. Problem solved.

Just be sure to remember the following questions and scenarios as this is what you will probably be sacrificing for your altruism and the benefit of Somerville’s telecommunications service.

How will you feel about the exponential decrease in your state government unimproved land value and retail property value over the coming decades? The owners of the property that the tower will be located on are going to be compensated very handsomely but you won’t be receiving any compensation even though it may aswell be on your land due to the proximity and the financial domino effect it will have. Would that be ok?

The property in question’s zoning will also change from ‘Rural Residential’ to ‘Telecommunications’.
What impact will neighbouring
5 acres of Telecommunication zoned land have on your property value and future development? You don’t know? Neither do I and it’s very concerning for our future circumstances.

You need to call council and jump through hoops to get permission to remove a dead dangerous tree just to repair an existing fence that one of its dead branches dropped on. But there is no issue with erecting a TelCo tower next door?

Will you feel 100% confident that the health of your growing children and livestock will be uncompromised?

The proposed tower is close to if not on a flight path into Tyabb Airfield. But that’s ok, there will be a few annoying flashing red lights on top of the tower to warn pilots when it’s dusk and dark. Phew.
But wait, the lights have blown and it’s 5-10 working days before a technician can fix it. Will that make you anxious and fear for the safety of the aircraft and its pilot every time you hear a plane flying over at dusk or night until it’s fixed? I know I will be. Or is Tyabb Airfield going to have to change its flight paths?

To construct and access the tower, the technicians and their machinery need to utilise your shared driveway that all owners in this area pay to maintain privately.
Oh No, the machinery has damaged the access and it’s popped your tyre as you were getting home. Do you think they’ll fix it in a timely manner? Do you think they’ll pay for the repair of your tyre?

There will potentially be security cameras on top of the tower also. There goes your privacy.

Local businesses seem to be a concern. Another resident owns a large horse agistment neighbouring the tower. I wonder if they will lose customers or have to lower their fees to compensate being next to the tower?

The tower will also be located in a low spot of this area so it probably won’t have the all powerful Wonderful Wizard of Oz reaching effects that people think it will. But who cares, chuck it up anyway.

For the record, I also experience stupidly patchy internet service and also have been known to wander around the place to get a signal and we also have need to run our business from home on occasion. That is why we have retained a landline.

So I am actually one of the 50% of Somerville residents that people presume to be speaking on behalf of. However, I am also one of the ‘ disgusting’ (quote) people opposed to the tower.
Hmmm, what a conundrum.

I have also read on Telstra’s website (yes my internet is working today) that when ringing 000 or 112 in cases of emergency from a mobile when there is no service, the calls are answered by Telstra Emergency Operators and then patched through to the 000 line. I unfortunately have had to cause to contact 000 a couple of times in my over a decade of residing here and have never had a problem reaching help.

Putting the Environmental Impact and Visual Pollution aside, the points above are just a few more of the valid concerns that you should consider when you discover through community gossip that one of your close neighbours has agreed to be well paid to erect a Telecommunications tower on their property next to you or if you indeed choose to take the offer up yourself.

If you’ve gotten this far, thanks for your time. Please don’t forget to inform the council if you would like the tower in your backyard or if not, maybe your neighbour does? Ask around. I am too ‘disgusting’ and ‘self centred’ to agree to it. Enjoy spending your not too shabby compensation payment if you do choose the tower option.

PS - We also received the same offer from the same private Telco company in our letter box and declined.

As a resident of Somerville for more than 35 years, I find it absolutely incredible that we residents east of Jones Road have not had an adequate, reliable mobile phone service provided to them before now! The installation of the NBN has done nothing to improve the situation. In fact, a lot of the time, the internet in our home is also sketchy, at best!

Our health and safety have been put at risk when we are unable to make, or receive calls or messages. This must surely be a denial of basic human rights?

Nearly every time I make or receive mobile communication, I am forced to walk around until I can get service, sometimes even having to leave my home in order to stay connected! We ARE NOT a Third World country without adequate resources, and yet we here in Somerville have been treated as if our needs don’t exist.

I can only presume that those who complain about “losing” their view, or having a few trees removed, don’t live on the eastern side of town and that they enjoy adequate mobile coverage, because they would not object to the project going ahead if they were disadvantaged as we are.

It is VITAL that planning approval be given, and that the tower be built immediately.

I can speak on behalf of around half the population of Somerville, as I have conducted surveys which revealed the appalling level of mobile phone coverage in the eastern half of Somerville.

I fully support the proposed mobile phone tower development as part of the creation of a basic level of mobile phone coverage in Somerville.

The availability of mobile phone coverage has emerged as a basic human right. Somerville residents on the east side of the Jones Rd Escarpment have poor to zero coverage. I have documented evidence of people being unable to call for an ambulance, in one case due to serious injuries after a fall, and a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction in another. Elderly residents in the local retirement village are unable to contact emergency services or their relatives.

Many residents to the east of the Jones Rd escarpment have poor to zero mobile coverage, and cannot reliably conduct their employment or personal business by mobile phone. Working from home is not an option for those affected.

The installation of the NBN system has not resolved the poor mobile coverage, and fails whenever there is an electricity outage. It is therefore impossible to call for help during storm conditions, when the power has failed and there is physical damage to the urban environment (powerlines down, trees fallen onto houses, etc).

I strongly urge Council not to be influenced by objectors who already have mobile phone coverage. Further, I urge Council not to be influenced by objections along the lines of "vegetation will be removed" or "it will spoil the view". These self-centred objections are absolutely disgusting to those of us who have no mobile coverage, and live in constant fear of being unable to call for help when we need it. Thank you.

I can speak on behalf of around half the population of Somerville, as I have conducted surveys which revealed the appalling level of mobile phone coverage in the eastern half of Somerville.

I fully support the proposed mobile phone tower development as part of the creation of a network to provide a basic level of mobile phone coverage in Somerville.

The availability of mobile phone coverage has emerged as a basic human right. Somerville residents on the east side of the Jones Rd Escarpment have poor to zero coverage. I have documented evidence of people being unable to call for an ambulance, in one case due to serious injuries after a fall, and a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction in another. Many elderly residents in the local retirement village are unable to contact emergency services or their relatives.

Many residents to the east of the Jones Rd escarpment have poor to zero mobile coverage, and cannot reliably conduct their employment or personal business by mobile phone. Working from home is often not an option for those affected.

The installation of the NBN system has not resolved the poor mobile coverage, and fails whenever there is an electricity outage. It is therefore impossible to call for help during storm conditions, when the power has failed and there is physical damage to the urban environment (powerlines down, trees fallen onto houses, etc).

I strongly urge Council not to be influenced by objectors who already have mobile phone coverage. Further, I urge Council not to be influenced by objections along the lines of "vegetation will be removed" or "it will spoil the view". These self-centred objections are absolutely disgusting to those of us who have no mobile coverage, and live in constant fear of being unable to call for help when we need it. Thank you.

Please keep me informed of progress of this important and vital project.

Tower will be an eyesore in the view from properties higher along Bungower Rd and on the ridge looking towards Western Port Bay thereby devaluing them.
Removal of any native vegetation is also not acceptable for same reason. It would not be allowed along any esplanades in front of properties overlooking ocean in Mornington, Mt Martha, Mt Eliza.
Since the introduction of NBN cabling to this part of Somerville there should be no need of a tower for local resident internet or communication.

This is an extremely busy street and like similar developments this will mean that the reduction to providing adequate parking will mean risky parking. I have no objection to this other than the reduction to parking.

I object to the proposed reduction of the required number of car parking spaces under the current planning scheme. Similar developments in Somerville have insufficient car parking spaces, resulting in cars being parked unsafely in the street, on nature strips, and even footpaths. This results in hindrance of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Other than that, I have no major concerns with the proposed development, SUBJECT TO the deletion of the proposed reduction of car parking spaces.

Council MUST put a stop to the free for all for developers who continue to want to ruin the unique woodlands area of Mt Eliza.
This area should NOT be treated as an area ripe for the developers or city folk looking to make a return on an investment by buying up these bush blocks with a view to destroying the trees and native vegetation on them when they apply to subdivide them!
Come on council. Time to show if you really care about protecting what is left of this unique area of the Peninsula.
Thank you.

So much for protecting the Mt Eliza woodlands...it looks like it's a free for all for developers to desecrate this unique part of the Peninsula .let us guess, there will have to be "subsequent tree removals and associated native vegetation removals " too ?!
If people moving to the Peninsula don't like trees and bushland then don't move to Mt.Eliza and think you can make it like the city !
Council MUST step up and do more to protect the woodlands of Mt.Eliza and stop the greedy developers ruining the landscape here forever! Think about the native animals too! Soon there will be no sounds of the unique Birdlife here either as there will be no trees for them to live in.
Take a look at the Mt Eliza hill everyone and just look at how over developed it's become and how the tree canopy has reduced. It's looking like Arthur's seat does. It's a travesty.
Thank you.

How many car washes does Mornington need ? Isn't there enough here already? What type of food and drink premises will they be and what and how much native vegetation will be removed for an unnecessary car wash?
Council needs to look at every planning application and review how many actually say "remove at least one tree and or some vegetation " and then factor in the sum of all these tree and vegetation removals and their negative impact on the Peninsula's tree canopy, before approving them all.
Seriously, there'll be no trees and native vegetation left at all if the developers continue to have their way with the Peninsula!
Thank you.

Is the tower not heritage listed and will it be rebuilt to look the same ? If so, why demolish it in the first place? Cheers

This block is just over 2600m2 and located in the Woodlands part of Mount Eliza. This 100% should be withdrawn and/or rejected immediately. The subdivision provisions for the Woodland area are determined primarily by the Design and Development Overlay (DDO). The current DDO (Schedule 4) provisions generally require a minimum lot size of no less than 2500 square metres, and generally allow no more than one dwelling to be constructed on a lot.

"Amongst other matters, the amendment will, when compared to the previous Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4 Environmental Design over the land, have the effect of introducing new restrictions, as generally summarised below (refer to the DDO18 for full detail):
 Introducing additional permit requirements.
 Increasing the minimum lot size in the Mt Eliza Woodland area (previously in the case of an integrated subdivision, an exemption was allowed for no more than two lots for every 2,600 square metres of site area.)"

So I guess the heritage listed home will be destroyed and replaced for a new unit.
How is this allowed?

This property 1175 Point Nepean road should be listed as historical it was one of the original homes in Rosebud and belonged to a captain it still has the original internal staircase amongst other beautiful details . It should be protected

Why do Mornington Council continue to allow relentless approvals for subdivisions but DO NOTHING to improve deficient infrastructure like roads and storm water drainage that are insufficient for additional houses and now flooding homes with excessive rain.
Put our rates to proper use on infrastructure or charge those who wish to subdivide with those costs

The Planning Application for 2 Ross Street Mornington is in a three story Zone.
The approval of a four story building will create a precedent for more applications for four stories or more.
A four story building will lead to a change in the current Village atmosphere which has been planned for in the past and is greatly enjoyed by both residents and visitors alike.
A maximum of THREE stories will provide an increase in residential development, thus increasing residential development in Mornington and contributing to the general increase in residential developments.

Annie Renehan ,
I have made comments on other builds/ subdivisions which back onto Ballar Creek as I know that landslips are a problem along Ballar Creek. Landslips along the creek can causes issues for the the stability of the beach and health of the bay and marine life.

There was a landslip at Candian Bay in the carpark and underneath the steps to Ballar Creek after some big storms in 2022 and at the same time the box drain in the creek blew out.
The box drain has not been fixed.
This would need council and South East Water engineers to work out a solution for the creek and also Canadian Bay carpark.

I more recently talked to South East Water about woody weed removal around Ballar Creek .The South East Water gentleman concerned had had to do some re-stabilisation of ground near a tennis court along the creek some time back and wasn't interested in disturbing any ground near the creek to remove weeds due to the instability of the ground.

I also know in Mt Eliza that in some places drainage is at capacity .

You can find the Coffey Geoscience Report about landsliding zones at Ballar Creek online.

MornPen has advocated for years now, that its environmental and biodiversity policies are to be the guiding force of the Shire. Where the Shire allows large sites to be reduced in size to more than one, there is bound to be a loss of all that the Shire advocates. What is the reasoning behind this ambiguous stance? And, certainly ambiguous practise? Since the 1950's, the Shire has been a forerunner in protecting the environment from would-be developers and those wishing to make a quick profit at the expense of others. Approving subdivisions such as this (and other) ones, appears to be destruction of our treasured environment, by stealth. So, too, is allowing moonscaping of three sites in Colstan Court where 75+ trees were removed. So too, is removing a mature, verge tree (same street) to accommodate a developer's plans for a corner development, nothing short of disheartening to those of us who wish to see our healthy Australian environment retained, protected and improved by our councils whose job it is to do this.

The absolute reality here is that genuine Mt Eliza residents are completely fed up with this Mornington Council who do absolutely ZERO to improve infrastructure but relentlessly allow EVERY subdivision so they collect more rates and waste on trivial issues instead of addressing infrastructure. So, time to stop this sub division nonsense until Council invests in infrastructure. Eg Storm Water, Roads, Maintenance on nature strip Trees.

Melinda, other houses in the street of smaller size land have been subdivided in the last 18 months so not sure why this one has caught your attention.

Amendment c219 has not been passed yet so the DDO4 overlay is still in effect for this property and therefore each lot of the subdivision should be 2500 m2. As this lot is 3322m² this DDO requirement will not be met.
The DDO4 says:
To ensure that subdivision and development is responsive to the character and physical characteristics of these environmentally sensitive areas.

To avoid higher densities of development in areas often prone to landslip, erosion or bushfires, and to minimise earthworks and vegetation removal in steep and sandy conditions.

The land is also subject to erosion and landslips and has EMO3 overlay especially for Ballar Creek. So the developers and council need to read the Coffee Report about conditions along Ballar.

They also need to remember it has vegetation protection overlays as well.

Also they need to thinking about everything in amendment VC216 in relation to climate change, biodiversity, water management etc.

Mail Notification received to 28/3/2024.for abutting property development proposal....... Due date for submissions 5/4/24....Good Friday 29/3.... Easter Monday 1/4....Two and a half days working days to discover and examine what is proposed to be built next door to 89 year old woman (very limited internet skills) home ..........What would you think ??????

An update for the community:
The Council rejected this application and the developer took it to VCAT, which was heard this week. A number of residents provided verbal and written submissions at the hearing. The Council have been absolutely brilliant in fighting this and presented an outstanding case at the hearing. Melbourne Water also objected strongly and have similarly been amazing.
VCAT will now take some time to make their final decision.

Thank you to all the community who have objected. A big thank you to the Council and Melbourne Water for their due diligence and hard work in defending this inappropriate development.